05-05-2016, 09:12 AM
(05-05-2016, 07:34 AM)xxlt Wrote: Brad has already mentioned what was inherently dangerous - the roads within the cemetery. And, everything you named - water, tall structures, dangerous equipment, open pits - is commonly found in cemeteries as well. So, yes, a cemetery is an inherently dangerous place and this one was too. Of course all the facts - exactly what was there, exactly how the road was laid out, the light level, etc. would need to be explored at trial - but to suggest the caretaker and his employer had little to no responsibility based on the facts we already know... well as Andy Dufresne said, "... are you just being obtuse?"
Roads are not inherently dangerous. Darkness alone is not enough to make a road dangerous. It takes more to hold a landowner responsible for injury to trespassers. If you own or control a piece of property that is not inherently dangerous then you are not required to build walls and gates to keep people from trespassing.
If the cemetery caretaker admitted that he allowed the party to take place there is still more required to make him liable for the actions of another person. If I let some kids have a party on my property that does not make me liable if one of them pulls a gun and shoots someone. This goes back to the reason for the accident being a drunk driver and not anything dangerous about the cemetery. It sounds like this is what the jury decided. The injury was due to the actions of a drunk driver, not any defect in the cemetery that made it dangerous. That is why they said "it could have happened anywhere". They believed it could have happened anywhere because the cause of the accident was a drunk driver, not a dangerous condition in the cemetery.
Finally the owner of the cemetery could be held responsible for the actions of the caretaker, but only if the negligence involved his job responsibilities. That is to say that the owner could be held responsible if the caretaker was negligent for letting the kids have parties there, but they would not be held liable if he did something like provide the alcohol. The liability of an owner for the actions of an employee or agent only apply to duties involved in the course of employment. For example Kroger would be responsible if one of their truck drivers had a wreck while on the job, but they would not be responsible if he robbed a gas station. There are some exceptions to this rule (like a day care hiring a child abuser) but generally that is the law.
